This is the fourth article in ConservativeHome’s week-long series on the Spending Review, and follows those by Peter Hoskin, Sean Worth and Mark Wallace. It is intended to be a “yellow” account of what should be in Review to go against the “blue” account that Policy Exchange's Sean Worth wrote on Tuesday.

Deficit
reduction has been the key policy of the coalition. Despite siren calls from disgruntled former spokesmen,
getting public spending under control and not bequeathing crushing debt to
future generations is a basic liberal principle. The coalition is right to
continue the project of consolidation, but the way the government has gone
about it has been poor.

Firstly, George
Osborne and Danny Alexander deserve credit for designing a fiscal consolidation
that broadly aligns with economic best practice: empirical evidence shows that
a ratio of 4:1 spending cuts to tax rises appears to correlate with the fastest
and strongest recoveries; raising taxes to fund government spending is
counter-productive. But the phasing has been all wrong. Osborne introduced the
tax rises up front, while the spending cuts have dribbled in over time. It
would have been both economically sensible and politically expedient to get the
pain over as early in the parliament as possible and give the economy as much
time as possible to recover. The political opportunity is now passed, but the
economic logic remains. The remainder of the cuts should be introduced
promptly, while further tax rises should be avoided.

The
balance of cuts has at least been expedient, if not economically sensible. So
far, 67% of the planned cuts to investment spending have been implemented,
compared with just 21% of the cuts to day-to-day spending on public services.
This is bad policy: capital spending typically has larger multipliers than
either tax rises or cuts to current spending. That means cuts retard, and
spending stimulates, economic growth far more than comparable changes in taxes
and revenue spending. Yet it is broadly agreed that Britain (not, it should be
said, exclusively the government) has been under-investing in infrastructure
for decades. Any outstanding cuts to infrastructure investment should be
cancelled and, where possible, spending on infrastructure should be increased.
However, ministers must resist the urge to build prestige projects: HS2 should
be cut to free resources for upgrading roads, railways and energy provision.

Sean Worth, in his article on Tuesday, was right
to describe ring-fencing as a “thorny issue”, but not to say that “it is right
to protect areas like health and education”. While there may be perfectly good
reasons to maintain – or even increase – spending in some departments or on
some programmes, it is wrong to exclude them entirely from the review process.
If health care, or international development, deserve to be protected, then the
logic of that should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of a spending review.
No case is so compelling that it deserves not to be questioned. It is not clear
why budgets for the foreign poor are not even open for discussion, when budgets
for domestic poor are; why care for the elderly is at risk but not care for the
sick. The effect of ring-fencing is to put greater pressure on other
departments. The Department of Health is expected to spend a fifth of Total
Managed Expenditure (TME) in 2013-4. Excluding it from the entire debate pushes
up the cuts facing other departments by an average of a quarter.

While the
welfare bill is the largest part of the budget: DWP is expected to spend £174
billion in 2013-4. However, for all the battles over welfare reform, half the
DWP budget is not only protected but is actually set to increase substantially
over coming years. Pensions consume more than half the welfare bill; pensioner
benefits in total make up £111 billion. Yet pensioners make up only a fifth of
the population. Labour this week proposed cutting some of the peripheral
benefits for wealthier pensioners, once again playing catch-up to the Lib Dems. This leaves the
Tories as the sole defenders of these unfair and regressive benefits. Yet the
whole discussion is marginal, tinkering nonsense. Ed Balls’ proposal would save
just £100 million from Winter Fuel Payments. Limiting them to those eligible
for Pension Credits would save a much more useful £1.2 billion, but pensions
themselves need to be looked at.

The
government’s much-vaunted “Triple Lock”, which guarantees to increase pensions
by whichever is higher out of inflation, earnings rises or 2.5 percent, is a
terrible policy. A case can be made for pegging pensions to earnings or
inflation, but to guarantee to increase it by the higher of the two (or by an
arbitrary figure if both inflation and earnings increases are low) is
effectively a commitment to shift wealth ever further from young and working
people to the elderly and retired. The policy is pure politics, pandering to
the “grey vote” at the expense of ever-harder pressed taxpayers. The Spending
Review offers the government an opportunity to abandon the Triple Lock and to
choose a single benchmark against which to uplift pensions. In the short-term,
uplifting pensions by 1 percent a year for three years (i.e. treating pensions
the same as other benefits and thus asking pensioners to share the pain of
deficit reduction alongside the rest of society) could save £2.8 billion a year
by 2015–16.

As for
defence expenditure, scrapping of Trident remains an obvious and inevitable
course of action. As CentreForum argued in 2012, “the MOD must find
£74bn of savings over ten years. Given that replacing the Trident submarines
will probably cost between £25-£33bn… By scrapping Trident, the UK would be
able to use the savings to increase the capacity of its conventional forces”.
Whether the priority is boosting the UK’s ability to project power or reducing
the deficit, Trident is a luxury we cannot afford.

Finally,
there are small but valuable wins if the Lib Dems stand their ground. The
Snoopers’ Charter is expected to cost £1.8bn over 10 years: it liberals can
fend off Conservative authoritarians a small but not negligible sum could be
saved, along with our civil liberties. That should make everybody happy.